United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

August 2014

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Proposed Rule

APHIS 2012-0049

RIN 0579-AE00

Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching Eggs, 

and Animal Germplasm from the United 

States

Policy & Program Development

Policy Analysis & Development
i

Summary

This proposed rule would amend 9 CFR part 91, which contains requirements for the 

inspection and handling of livestock (cattle, horses, captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine) to 

be exported from the United States. Among other things, the proposed rule would remove some 

prescriptive requirements applicable to livestock, either completely or by replacing them with 

performance standards, and would make other adjustments in inspection and handling 

requirements to assist exporters. These changes would provide APHIS and exporters more 

flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to 

ensure the animals’ health and welfare. 

The proposed rule would also add requirements for individual identification of livestock 

intended for export and use of methods and laboratories approved by APHIS when livestock 

must be tested for certain diseases. The proposed rule would also set forth minimum 

requirements for the information that must be provided on export certificates for livestock and 

for non-livestock animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm (when such certificates are 

required by the importing country). These changes would help ensure that all live animals, 

hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health 

requirements of the countries to which they are destined and that APHIS has assurances 

regarding their health and welfare at the time of export.

Entities directly affected by this rule would include exporters of live animals, hatching 

eggs, and animal germplasm. While we do not know the size distribution of these exporters, we 

expect that the majority are small by Small Business Administration standards, given the 

prevalence of small entities among livestock producers. Operators of export inspection facilities, 

export isolation facilities within 28 hours driving distance from a port of embarkation, and ocean 
ii

vessels would also be directly affected. These industries are also largely composed of small 

businesses. The provisions of the proposed rule would facilitate the export process for affected 

parties.
iii

Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................................. i

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Reasons Action is Being Considered.................................................................................. 2

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule ........................................................................ 3

Potentially Affected Small Entities..................................................................................... 4

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements..................... 6

Exporters......................................................................................................................... 7

Export Inspection Facilities, Export Isolation Facilities, and Ocean Vessels............... 10

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations.......................... 16

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule............................... 16
1

Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. This initial regulatory flexibility analysis describes expected impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, as required by section 603 of the Act.

This proposed rule would amend the regulations pertaining to the exportation of livestock 

from the United States. Among other things, it would remove most of the requirements for 

export health certifications, tests, and treatments from the regulations, and instead would direct 

importers to follow the requirements of the importing country regarding such processes and 

procedures; allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at facilities other than the 

export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, under certain 

circumstances; and replace specific standards for export inspection facilities and ocean vessels 

with performance standards. These changes would provide exporters and APHIS with more 

flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to 

ensure the health and welfare of the livestock. 

The proposed rule would also require thatlivestock exported from the United States be 

individually identified in accordance with APHIS’ animal disease traceability regulations and the 

requirements of the importing country and that any testing of livestock for Program diseases be 

conducted using methods and laboratories approved by APHIS. Additionally, if a country

requires an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock, including pets, or for any

hatching eggs or animal germplasm, we propose to require that the animal, hatching eggs, or 

animal germplasm have such export health certificate to be eligible for export from the United 

States. These changes would help ensure that all live animals, hatching eggs, and animal 
2

germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of the countries to 

which they are destined. 

Reasons Action is Being Considered

The regulations regarding the export of livestock from the United States have not been 

substantively amended for many years. Some provisions, such as the requirement that all 

livestock intended for export by air or sea must be inspected prior to embarkation at an export 

inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, sometimes interfere with exports, 

particularly when there are large shipments and tight shipping deadlines. Other requirements, 

such as diagnostic testing and certifications required for specific species, regardless of the 

country of destination, may not be necessary in order to meet the health requirements of an 

importing country, or in order for APHIS to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of 

livestock at the time of export. Still other requirements, such as the minimum information that 

must be included on an export health certificate, should be updated and clarified to reflect current 

Agency practices and policies. 

APHIS is proposing a number of changes that would remove unnecessary or overly 

prescriptive requirements and give exporters and APHIS more options for inspecting and 

handling livestock intended for export. The proposed changes would continue to ensure the 

health and welfare of the animals and would help ensure that all animals, hatching eggs, and 

animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the import health requirements of 

countries to which they are destined.

The importance of the regulatory revisions included in this proposed rule is evident given

recent significant increases in the quantity and value of livestock exported by the United States. 

In 2009, the United States exported about 58,000 head of cattle, valued at about $59 million. In 
3

2012, U.S. cattle exports totaled over 191,000 head and were valued at more than $403 million. 

Russia sharply increased imports of U.S. cattle during 2012, importing more than 89,000 head 

valued at more than $262 million, compared to about 37,500 head valued at $93 million during 

2011. Responding to this surge in demand, APHIS approved 7 temporary export inspection 

facilities in 2012 to supplement the work done at permanent facilities, reduce the distance cattle 

travel before export, and help exporters meet their shipping deadlines. In 2013, U.S. cattle 

exports totaled over 159,000 head and were valued at more than $278 million. The proposed rule 

would help ensure that expanding livestock exports by the United States are facilitated by the 

animal health regulations. 

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule

The objective of the proposed rule is to remove or modify certain export requirements 

such as those described above and thereby facilitate U.S. exports of live animals, hatching eggs, 

and animal germplasm. The changes and expected effects are described below under the section 

on compliance requirements.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 

U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), which states that the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the 

exportation of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the 

prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of any pest or disease of 

livestock from or within the United States. The AHPA also authorizes the Secretary to prohibit 

the exportation of any livestock if the Secretary determines that the livestock is unfit to be 

moved, and authorizes the Secretary to prohibit the use of any means of conveyance in 

connection with the exportation of livestock if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary because the means of conveyance has not been maintained in a clean and 
4

sanitary condition or does not have accommodations for the safe and proper movement and 

humane treatment of livestock.

APHIS has promulgated regulations in 9 CFR part 91 governing the inspection and 

handling of cattle, horses, captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine intended for export from the 

United States. The Secretary has determined that certain Part 91 regulations can be safely 

removed or modified to facilitate exports. 

Potentially Affected Small Entities

Entities directly affected by this rule would include exporters of live animals, hatching 

eggs, and animal germplasm. While we do not know the size distribution of these exporters, we 

expect that the majority are small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, given the 

prevalence of small entities among livestock producers. Operators of export inspection facilities,

export isolation facilities located within 28 hours driving distance of a port of embarkation, and

ocean vessels would also be directly affected. These industries are also largely composed of 

small businesses. 

According to SBA size standards and using the North America Industry Classification 

System, operations with not more than $750,000 in annual sales are considered small entities for 

beef cattle ranching and farming (NAICS 112111), dairy cattle and milk production (NAICS 

112120), cervid farming (included in NAICS 112990), sheep and goat farming (NAICS 1124),

and hog and pig farming (NAICS 112210). The small-entity standard for chicken egg 

production (NAICS 112310) is annual receipts of not more than $12.5 million.
5

In 2012, 93 percent of cattle and calf farms and 71 percent of dairy farms generated less 

than $500,000 in cash receipts, and 3.6 percent of beef farms and about 15 percent of dairy farms 

generated $1 million or more.1

In 2012, there were 2,465 farms categorized within NAICS 112990, a classification 

composed of establishments primarily engaged in raising captive cervids,. The average market 

value of agricultural products sold in 2012 was about $22,700, well below the SBA's small-entity 

threshold.

In 2012, there were 53,754 farms that sold about 3,947,600 lamb and sheep in the United 

States. Of these, more than 96% of the farms had less than $500,000 in sales, well below the 

SBA standard for small entities. That same year, over 76 percent of swine operations (55,882 

farms) qualified as small entities.

In 2012, there were 3,144 farms primarily engaged in chicken egg production on a 

contract basis and about an additional 2,000 operations primarily engaged in organic egg 

production. The average market value of agricultural products sold by the establishments 

engaged in organic egg production in 2012 was about $77,000, well below the SBA small-entity 

standard. The total value of egg production in the U.S. in 2013 was $8.5 billion or $2.7 million 

per establishment, well below the SBA standard for small entities.2

Clearly, these agricultural industries are primarily composed of small entities, and it is 

likely that many if not most of the operations that export live animals, hatching eggs, or animal 

germplasm are small as well. 

 

1

2012 Census of Agriculture, USDA NASS. This census is also the source of information on average sales for the

other categories of livestock producers included in this section. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/#full_report

2

http://www.uspoultry.org/economic_data/
6

Turning to wholesale businesses, the small-entity standard for exporters of animal 

germplasm or hatching eggs (included among industries categorized in NAICS 424590 and 

424440, respectively) is establishments with not more than 100 employees. The average number 

of employees per establishment for industries within these NAICS codes in 2007 (most recent 

year for which data are available) was fewer than 9 and fewer than 23, respectively, well below

the small-entity standard.3 

For businesses that operate ocean vessels used to transport live animals (included within

NAICS 483111), the small-entity standard is not more than 500 employees. In 2007, there was 

an average of 33 employees per establishment in this industry classification, far below the smallentity standard.

Lastly, for animal export facilities and animal isolation facilities (included in NAICS 

488999), the small-entity standard is annual receipts of not more than $7 million. The average

revenue of establishments in this industry classification in 2007 was $704,000, well below the 

small-entity threshold. 

It is apparent that the majority of entities that would be affected by the proposed rule are 

likely to be small. However, we welcome public comment that would allow us to better 

understand the representation of small entities among these operations. 

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the proposed rule are 

discussed in the rule under the heading "Paperwork Reduction Act." This section is devoted to a 

 

3

Statistics on the average size of establishments described in this and following paragraphs are taken from 

www.naics.com/naicsfiles/Size_Standards_Tables2013.pdf
7

discussion of proposed changes in compliance requirements and expected effects for (i) exporters

and (ii) export inspection facilities, export isolation facilities, and ocean vessels. Provisions of 

the proposed rule are expected to promote export opportunities for the U.S. livestock, hatching 

egg, and animal germplasm industries by facilitating the export process. The provisions would 

also underscore for our trading partners that APHIS uses its regulatory authority to ensure the 

health and humane treatment of live animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm imported 

from the United States. 

Exporters

 Export health certificates for livestock would only be required to contain the 

minimum information that is required by the importing country and/or that is

necessary for APHIS to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of the 

animals destined for export. This change should result in time and cost savings for 

many importers.

 If a country requires tests for any diseases for which APHIS has a control or 

eradication program (Program disease), the tests would have to be conducted using 

methods and laboratories approved by APHIS. This change would assure importing 

countries that tests for all Program diseases, not just brucellosis (as is currently the 

case), are conducted in accordance with APHIS requirements. This provision is 

expected to strengthen the confidence of importers of U.S. live animals, hatching 

eggs, and animal germplasm that the commodities are in good health.

 Animals other than livestock, such as pets, would have to have export health 

certificates when required by the importing country. The purpose of including this 

requirement in our regulations is to provide APHIS with a basis for collaboration with 
8

animal health officials of other countries when problems arise with shipments of such 

animals. The cost to exporters of non-livestock animals of APHIS requiring export 

health certificates in such instances is expected to be minimal, at most, since such 

exporters currently have to obtain certificates in order to meet the requirements of the 

importing country. The requirement would merely codify long-standing practices. 

 If an export health certificate is issued and endorsed electronically, an original, signed 

export health certificate would not have to accompany animals to the port of 

embarkation or land border port. This change would streamline movement 

requirements if, as we anticipate happening in the future, export health certificates 

can be issued and endorsed electronically and APHIS representatives at ports have 

electronic access to those export health certificates.

 The export of animals, hatching eggs, or germplasm that are under Federal, State, or 

local quarantine or movement restrictions would be prohibited unless the importing 

country issues an import permit or other written instruction allowing the animal or 

other commodity to be imported, and APHIS concurs with the export. This change is 

also expected to have little, if any, effect on exporters, as export health certificates for 

livestock must certify that the issuing veterinarian inspected the animals and found 

them to be healthy and free of evidence of communicable disease and from exposure 

to communicable disease.

 Pre-export inspections of livestock would be allowed to take place at facilities other 

than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation under 

certain circumstances. Specifically, subject to certain conditions, APHIS would 

authorize pre-export inspections at export isolation facilities and export inspection 
9

facilities other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of 

embarkation. Currently, many countries require livestock for export to be kept from 

other animals for a period of time before export. Facilities used for this purpose may

be distant from the port of embarkation. Allowing pre-export inspections at export 

isolation facilities not more than 28 hours driving distance from the port of 

embarkation would facilitate export of large shipments of livestock that cannot be 

accommodated at export inspection facilities at ports, and would provide flexibility in 

other situations. It would expedite the export process and lessen transportation, labor, 

and rental costs in some instances, particularly for large shipments of animals.

Similarly, some export inspection facilities are more equipped, in terms of personnel 

and resources, to handle large lots of animals than other inspection facilities. 

Allowing use of the export inspection facility most suited to the orderly export of 

livestock would also facilitate exports.

 Livestock currently are required to receive 5 hours of rest, feed, and water prior to 

movement to an aircraft or ocean vessel for export, with limited exceptions for 

livestock that will arrive in the importing country within a certain period of time. We 

would reduce the minimum rest period from 5 hours to 2 hours, although an inspector 

could increase the period up to 5 hours at his or her discretion and based on a 

determination that more rest is necessary in order to have assurances that the animals 

are fit to travel prior to loading. We would also remove any exemptions to this 

requirement. These changes would modify the 5-hour requirement while still 

ensuring the animals’ care. The average cost of feed per day at an export inspection 
10

facility is about $1.50 per head. More flexible pre-embarkation rest and feeding 

requirements should result in cost savings for most exporters.

 Pre-export inspection could occur within 48 hours prior to export rather than 24 

hours as currently required. This change would ease export scheduling. It also may

reduce the demand for inspections outside of normal business hours and thereby 

decrease overtime costs.

 The owner or owner’s agent of any livestock rejected as unfit to travel would be 

required to make effective and humane arrangements for the handling of the animal. 

This proposed requirement would give notice to owners and their agents that it is their 

responsibility to take appropriate care of animals that are judged unfit to travel upon 

arrival at a port. It is expected to be accepted by exporters as a reasonable 

requirement.

Export Inspection Facilities, Export Isolation Facilities, and Ocean 

Vessels

 As mentioned, many countries require livestock intended for export to be kept 

isolated from other animals for a period of time before export. After the isolation 

period ends, if the livestock will be exported by air or sea, they must be shipped to an 

export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation for pre-export

inspection by APHIS. The proposed rule would allow pre-export inspection at an 

export isolation facility located 28 hours driving distance or less from the port of 

embarkation when the exporter can demonstrate to APHIS’ satisfaction that the 

livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be transported to an export 

inspection facility, when the distance from the export isolation facility to the port of 

embarkation is significantly less than the distance from the export isolation facility to 
11

the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when 

inspection at the export isolation facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS 

resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator. The Administrator’s 

decision to allow inspection at an export isolation facility as an alternative to 

inspection at an export inspection facility would be contingent upon APHIS having 

veterinarians available to provide services at that location. Approval would also be 

contingent upon the Administrator determining that the facility had space, lighting, 

and humane means of handling animals sufficient for APHIS veterinarians to safely 

conduct required inspections.

Similarly, the proposed rule would allow pre-export inspection at an export 

inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of 

embarkation when the exporter can demonstrate to APHIS’ satisfaction that the 

livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be transported to the export 

inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at this 

different export inspection facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, 

or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.

These changes would facilitate the export of large shipments of livestock that may

be difficult to accommodate at a particular export inspection facility and would 

provide flexibility in other situations. Such situations could include a temporary

inability by APHIS to staff a particular export inspection facility, or a situation where 

an APHIS veterinarian is at or near an export isolation facility for another purpose 

and conducting the pre-export inspection there would alleviate the necessity to load, 
12

transport, and unload the livestock to transport them to an export inspection facility

for APHIS inspection. 

 Prescriptive requirements in the regulations for export inspection facilities and ocean 

vessels would be replaced in many instances by performance standards, and guidance 

for meeting the performance standards would be placed on the APHIS Web site. In a 

Program Handbook, APHIS would provide guidance on how facilities can meet 

APHIS’ requirement to have adequate measures in place to protect the livestock in a

facility from exposure to animals of different disease statuses and fomites during the 

isolation period. The measures described in the Program Handbook would be one 

way, but not the only way, to comply with the requirement.

The amended regulations would contain the following performance standard: 

“Facilities must be constructed, equipped, and managed in a manner approved by the 

Administrator to prevent the transmission of disease to and from livestock in the 

facility, provide for the safe and humane handling and restraint of livestock, and 

provide sufficient space, offices, and lighting for APHIS veterinarians to safely 

conduct required inspections of livestock and related business.” Performance 

standards such as this would enable operators of facilities to choose the most 

economical means of meeting regulatory requirements. 

 APHIS is making the draft Program Handbook available for comment along with the

proposed rule. The Handbook includes specific standards for meeting regulatory

requirements. In addition, the amended regulations would allow for facilities to 

request approval of alternative ways to meet the requirements. Placing the 

performance guidance on the APHIS Web site would aid the facilities and vessels in 
13

complying with the standards, and allowing for alternative ways to meet the standards 

could result in cost savings for the affected parties.

 Allowing inspections to take place at export isolation facilities located 28 hours 

driving distance or less from the port of embarkation would increase business 

opportunities for these facilities. There may result a decrease in demand for the 

services of export inspection facilities, but the impact is expected to be limited. The 

latter facilities would continue to handle most exports, especially smaller shipments 

of animals. Currently there are 56 privately owned export inspection facilities 

approved by the Administrator to service 34 ports. 

 APHIS is proposing to allow the Administrator to temporarily approve ports without 

export inspection facilities under certain circumstances. Specifically, such ports 

could be approved for a specific shipment of livestock when the Administrator has 

authorized pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export isolation 

facility or an export inspection facility associated with a different port of 

embarkation. This change would allow temporary use of ports that do not have 

export inspection facilities for specific shipments of livestock. Such ports would not 

be listed with designated ports of embarkation on APHIS’ import-export Web site. 

Their use would be limited to the specific shipment(s) for which they were approved 

by the Administrator. Having this export option available would not only promote 

the care of the animals in those instances when a temporary port of embarkation is 

determined to be appropriate, such as when the animals would suffer undue hardship 

if they had to be transported to another port, but would also result in transport cost 

savings for the exporter.
14

 Current requirements that owners, masters, or operators of ocean vessels and captains 

of aircraft must refuse for transportation any livestock that is unfit to withstand the 

rigors of such transportation would remain, with one change: Rather than require that 

an APHIS veterinarian judge whether an animal is fit to travel, we propose to allow 

an APHIS representative to make that decision. A list of conditions that may make 

livestock unfit for travel would be added to the regulations. The list is not intended to 

be all inclusive, but should cover the most common situations. 

 APHIS is also proposing to require the owner or operator of any ocean vessel 

used to export livestock from the United States to file a report with APHIS upon 

completion of the voyage. This report would document the number of each species of 

livestock loaded for transport and discharged at the foreign destination; the number of 

each species that died during transport or unloading, if any, and an explanation of any

mortalities. Additionally, the report would have to document any failure of a major 

life support system for livestock during the voyage, including, but not limited to, 

systems for providing feed and water, ventilation systems, and livestock waste 

removal systems. Any such failure would have to be documented, regardless of the 

duration or whether the failure resulted in any harm to the livestock. We propose to 

require that the report be submitted within 5 business days after completion of the 

voyage. Additionally, if an ocean vessel used to export livestock experiences any

failure of a major life support system for livestock during the voyage, we propose to 

require that the owner or operator of the ocean vessel notify APHIS immediately by

telephone, facsimile, or other electronic means. Contact numbers and addresses, as 

well as an optional form for completing the report, would be available in the Program 
15

Handbook. 

There are currently no requirements for owners or operators of ocean vessels to 

report livestock deaths or serious system failures on ocean vessels that could affect 

the health of any livestock transported. Having this information would allow APHIS 

to better determine whether a given vessel meets our performance standards or 

whether any of our guidance for meeting performance standards should be adjusted. 

Requiring that APHIS be notified immediately of any major system failures would 

alert APHIS to the potential need for additional food or other resources for the 

livestock, or a potential stop at another port. APHIS would also be able to notify

animal health officials in the country of destination about any expected delays or 

animal health issues they may have to deal with as a result of the system failures. In 

the absence of these requirements, APHIS may not learn of problems affecting 

animals during a voyage, or may be forced to scramble to make last minute 

arrangements in the event of a problem. We propose that failure to provide timely

reports as required could result in APHIS disapproving future livestock shipments on

that vessel or by that owner or operator. The cost of reporting upon voyage 

completion is expected to be minimal.

 We are proposing to retain the requirements for cleaning and disinfection of vessels 

and aircraft. We are, however, proposing to remove references to specific 

disinfectants from the regulations and, instead, to list approved disinfectants on 

APHIS’ Web site. Other disinfectants could be approved by the Administrator upon 

determination of their effectiveness and, if chemical disinfectants, their registration or 

exemption for the specified use by the Environmental Protection Agency. This 
16

change would potentially provide carriers with a broader choice of disinfectants and 

possible cost savings.

 

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and 

Regulations

APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the proposed rule with 

other Federal rules.

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of 

the Rule

We expect effects of the proposed rule for small entities to be positive, as described 

above in the discussion of compliance requirements, and therefore have not identified 

alternatives to minimize these effects.